ORI GI NAL PAPER

Dynamic Response of Machine Foundation on Layered Soil:

Cone Model Versus Experiments
P. K. Pradhan A. Mandal D. K. Baidya
D. P. Ghosh
Received: 21 May 2006 / Accepted: 24 February 2008 / Published online: 22 March 2008
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008
Abstract This paper presents the experimental
validation of analytical solution based on cone model
for machine foundation vibration analysis on layered
soil. Impedance functions for a rigid massless circular
foundation resting on a two layered soil system
subjected to vertical harmonic excitation are found
using cone model. Linear hysteretic material damping
is introduced using correspondence principle. The
frequency-amplitude response of a massive founda-
tion is then computed using impedance functions. To
verify the solution eld experiments are conducted in
two different layered soil systems such as gravel layer
over in situ soil and gravel layer over concrete slab
(rigid base). A total 72 numbers of vertical vibration
tests on square model footing were conducted using
Lazan type mechanical oscillator, varying the inuenc-
ing parameters such as depth of top layer, static weight
of foundation and dynamic force level. The frequency-
amplitude response in general and in particular the
resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes predicted
by cone model is compared with the results of
experimental investigation, which shows a close agree-
ment. Thus the cone model is reliable in its application
to machine foundation vibration on layered soil.
Keywords Cone model In-situ test
Layered soil Machine foundation
Resonant amplitude Resonant frequency
Wave propagation
Notations
a
0
Dimensionless frequency (xr
0
/c
s
)
B Nondimensional modied mass ratio
b
0
Nondimensional mass ratio
c, c
0
Appropriate wave velocity in top and bottom
soil layers respectively
c(a
0
) Normalized damping coefcient
c
p
, c
0
p
Dilatational wave velocity in top and bottom
soil layers, respectively
c
s
c
0
s
Shear wave velocity in top and bottom soil
layers respectively
d Depth of the soil layer
G, G
0
Shear modulus of top and bottom soil layers
respectively
K Static stiffness coefcient on homogeneous
half-space
P. K. Pradhan (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, University College
of Engineering, Burla 768018, India
e-mail: pkpradhan1@yahoo.co.in
A. Mandal D. K. Baidya D. P. Ghosh
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute
of Technology, Kharagpur 721302, India
A. Mandal
e-mail: anirbanmandal@mailcity.com
D. K. Baidya
e-mail: baidya@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in
D. P. Ghosh
e-mail: dpg@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
DOI 10.1007/s10706-008-9181-8
"
Ka
0
Dynamic impedance
k(a
0
) Normalized stiffness coefcient
m Mass of the foundation or total vibrating
mass (mass of foundation plus machine) in
case of machine foundation
m
e
Unbalanced mass (on machine)
Dm Trapped mass
P
0
Harmonic interaction force
Q Harmonic force on foundation
|Q| Force amplitude on the foundation
r
0
Radius of circular foundation or radius of
equivalent circle for non circular foundation
u Harmonic displacement for the layered soil
at depth z
u
0
Harmonic surface displacement for the
layered soil
"u Harmonic displacement at depth z for
homogeneous half-space
"u
0
Harmonic surface displacement for
homogeneous half-space
|u
0
| Displacement amplitude for the layered soil
Greeks
h Angle for setting eccentricity in the oscillator
x Circular frequency of excitation
l Trapped mass coefcient
n,
n
0
Hysteretic material damping ratio of top and
bottom soil layers respectively
q,
q
0
Mass density of top and bottom soil layers
respectively
m, m
0
Poissons ratio of top and bottom soil layers
respectively
1 Introduction
The determination of resonant frequency and reso-
nant amplitude of foundations has been a subject of
considerable interest in the recent years, in relation to
the design of machine foundations. One of the key
steps in the current methods of dynamic analysis of a
foundation soil system to predict resonant frequency
and amplitude under machine type loading is to
estimate the dynamic impedance functions of an
associated rigid but massless foundation, using a
suitable method of dynamic analysis. Over the years a
number of methods have been developed for foun-
dation vibration analysis, the extensive reviews of
which are presented in Gazetas (1983).
The cone model was originally developed by
Ehlers (1942) to represent a surface disk under
translational motions and later for rotational motion
(Meek and Veletsos 1974; Veletsos and Nair 1974).
By comparison to rigorous solutions, the cone models
originally appeared to be such an oversimplication
of reality that they were used primarily to obtain
qualitative insight. For example, the surprising fact
that the cones are dynamically equivalent to an
interconnection of a small number of masses, springs,
and dashpots with frequency-independent coefcients
encouraged a number of researchers to match discrete
element representation of exact solutions in fre-
quency domain by curve tting (Veletsos and Verbic
1973; Wolf and Somaini 1986; de Barros and Luco
1990). Proceeding in another direction, Gazetas
(1987); Gazetas and Dobry (1984) employed wedges
and cones to elucidate the phenomenon of radiation
damping in two and three dimensions. Later Meek
and Wolf (1992a) presented a simplied methodol-
ogy to evaluate the dynamic response of a base mat
on the surface of a homogeneous half-space. The
cone model concept was extended to a layered cone
to compute the dynamic response of a footing or a
base mat on a soil layer resting on a rigid rock, Meek
and Wolf (1992b) and on exible rock, Wolf and
Meek (1993). Meek and Wolf (1994) performed
dynamic analysis of embedded footings by idealizing
the soil as a translated cone instead of elastic half-
space. Wolf and Meek (1994) have found out the
dynamic stiffness coefcients of foundations resting
on or embedded in a horizontally layered soil using
cone frustums. Also Jaya and Prasad (2002) studied
the dynamic stiffness of embedded foundations in
layered soil using the same cone frustums. The major
drawback of cone frustums method as reported by
Wolf and Meek (1994) is that the damping coefcient
can become negative at lower frequency, which is
physically impossible. Pradhan et al. (2003, 2004)
have computed dynamic impedance of circular foun-
dation resting on layered soil using wave propagation
in cones, which overcomes the drawback of the above
cone frustum method. The details of the use of cone
models in foundation vibration analysis are summa-
rized in Wolf (1994) and Wolf and Deeks (2004).
During the last 30 years signicant developments
has been made in the analytical solutions to the
problems of foundation vibration. But the experi-
mental verication of such theories remains essential
454 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
123
prerequisite for their adoption and reliable applica-
tion in practice. Attempts have been taken in the past
to verify theoretical solutions by conducting labora-
tory or eld tests (Sridharan et al. 1990; Crouse et al.
1990; Gazetas and Stokoe II 1991; Baidya and
Muralikrishna 2001; Baidya and Sridharan 2002;
Mandal and Baidya 2004; Baidya and Rathi 2004).
Gazetas and Stokoe II (1991) have stated different
types of experimental investigation citing their
advantages and limitations. In the above paper the
researchers have recommended to use the results of
case studies and eld experiments for the purpose
taking in to consideration the complexities of the soil
medium.
For foundation vibration analyses simple models,
which t the size and economics of the project and
require no sophisticated computer code are better
suited. For instance the cone models, which provide
conceptual clarity with physical insight and is easier for
the practicing engineers to follow. To the best of
authors knowledge no literature is available with
regard to the experimental verication of cone model
for its reliable application to the analysis of foundation
vibration. Hence in the present study it is proposed to
verify the applicability of cone model for layered soil to
the problem of machine foundation vibration. A total
72 numbers of eld tests are conducted on two different
layered soil systems with variation of inuencing
parameters. The model predicted frequency-amplitude
response is thoroughly compared with the results of
eld tests. In particular, the predicted resonant fre-
quencies and resonant amplitudes are compared
quantitatively with experimental results.
2 Problem Statement
A rigid massless circular foundation of radius r
0
resting on a two-layered soil system is addressed for
vertical degree of freedom (Fig. 1). The top layer
with depth d has the shear modulus G, Poissons ratio
m, mass density q and hysteretic damping ratio n. The
underlying half-space has the shear modulus G
0
,
Poissons ratio m
0
, mass density q
0
and hysteretic
damping ratio n
0
. The interaction force P
0
and the
corresponding displacement u
0
are assumed to be
harmonic. The layer interface can also be considered
xed. The dynamic impedance of the massless
foundation (disk) is expressed by
"
Ka
0

P
0
u
0
Kka
0
ia
0
ca
0
1
where
"
Ka
0
dynamic impedance, k(a
0
) = normal-
ized spring coefcient, c(a
0
) = normalized damping
coefcient, a
0
= xr
0
/c
s
, dimensionless frequency
with c
s

G=q
_
, shear wave velocity of the top
layer and K = 4Gr
0
/(1-m), static stiffness coefcient
of the disk on homogeneous half-space with material
properties of the top layer.
Using the equations of dynamic equilibrium, the
dynamic displacement amplitude of the foundation
with mass m and subjected to a vertical harmonic
force Q is expressed as
u
0
j j
Q
Kka
0
ia
0
ca
0
Ba
2
0

2
Where |u
0
| = dynamic displacement amplitude under
the foundation resting on layered soil, |Q| = force
amplitude, B
1m
4
b
0
, the modied mass ratio with
b
0

m
qr
3
0
, the mass ratio.
In general, |Q| can be assumed to be constant or
equal to m
e
ex
2
which is generated by the eccentric
rotating part in machine, where m
e
is the eccentric
mass, e is the eccentricity and x is the circular
frequency.
3 Wave Propagation in Cones
Figure 2a shows wave propagation in cones beneath
the disk of radius r
0
resting on a two-layered soil
under vertical harmonic excitation, P
0
. The dilata-
tional waves emanate beneath the disk and propagate
G
d
0
r
Massless circular
foundation
0
u
0
P
G
Half-space
Fig. 1 Massless foundation on layered soil under vertical
harmonic interaction force
Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468 455
123
at velocity c equal to the dilatational wave velocity c
p
for m B 1/3 and twice the shear wave velocity, c
s
for
1/3 \m B 1/2. These waves reect back and forth at
layer interface and free surface, spreading and
decreasing in amplitude. Let the displacement of
the (truncated semi-innite) cone be denoted as " u
with the value "u
0
under the disk Fig. 2b, modeling a
disk with same load P
0
on a homogeneous half-space
with the material properties of the top layer. The
parameters of cone model shown in Fig. 2b are given
in Table 1. This displacement "u
0
is used to generate
the displacement of the layer u with its value at
surface, u
0
. Thus, "u
0
can also be called as the
generating function. The rst downward wave prop-
agating in a cone with apex 1 (height z
0
and radius of
base r
0
), which may be called as the incident wave
and its cone will be the same as that of the half-space,
as the wave generated beneath the disk does not know
if at a specic depth an interface is encountered or
not. Thus the aspect ratio dened by the ratio of the
height of cone to the radius of the disk (z
0
/r
0
) is made
equal for cone of the half-space and rst cone of the
layered soil. Since the incident wave and subsequent
reected waves propagate in the same medium (top
layer), the aspect ratio of the corresponding cones
will be same. Thus knowing the height of the rst
cone, from the geometry, the height of other cones
corresponding to subsequent upward and downward
reected waves are found as shown in Fig. 2a. The
displacement amplitude of the incident wave propa-
gating in a cone with apex 1, which is inversely
proportional to the distance from the apex of the cone
and expressed in frequency domain as
"uz; x
z
0
z
0
z
e
ix
z
c
"u
0
x 3
The displacement of the incident wave at layer
interface equals
"ud; x
z
0
z
0
d
e
ix
d
c
"u
0
x 4
Enforcing a reection coefcient a(x) at the inter-
face, the displacement of the rst reected upward
wave propagating in a cone with apex 2 (vide Fig. 2a)
equals
a
z
0
z
0
2d z
e
ix
2dz
c

"u
0
x 5
At the free surface the displacement of the upward
wave derived by substituting z = 0 in Eq. 5 equals
a
z
0
z
0
2d
e
ix
2d
c

"u
0
x 6
Enforcing compatibility of the amplitude and of
elapsed time of the reected waves displacement at
the free surface, the displacement of the downward
wave propagating in a cone with apex 3 is obtained as
a
z
0
z
0
2d z
e
ix
2dz
c

"u
0
x 7
Inthis pattern the waves propagate intheir owncones and
their corresponding displacements are found. The result-
ing displacement in the layer is obtained by superposing
all the downandupwaves (uptojthimpingement at layer
interface) and is expressed in the following form
uz; x
z
0
e
ix
z
c
z
0
z
"u
0
x

1
j1
a
j
z
0
e
ix
2jdz
c

z
0
2jd z

z
0
e
ix
2jdz
c

z
0
2jd z
_ _"u
0
x 8
At the free surface the displacement of the foundation
is obtained by setting z = 0 in Eq. 8 as
u
0
x uz 0; x
"u
0
x 2

1
j1
a
j
1
2jd
z
0
e
ix
2jd
c
"u
0
x 9
u
0
x

1
j0
E
F
j
e
ix
2jd
c
"u
0
x 10
with E
F
0
1 11a
and for j !1; E
F
j

2a
j
1
2jd
z
0
11b
E
j
F
can be called as echo constant, the inverse of
sum of which at x = 0 gives the static stiffness of the
layered soil normalized by the static stiffness of the
homogeneous half-space with material properties of
the top layer.
3.1 ReectionRefraction at Layer Interface
The waves occurring at layer interface are addressed
in Fig. 3. In the frequency domain the incident wave
f(x) propagating downwards in the cone with apex 1
(material properties of top layer: c appropriate wave
456 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
123
velocity, and q mass density), yields a reected wave
g(x) propagating upwards in cone segment with apex
3 (same material properties of top layer c, q) and a
refracted wave h(x) propagating downwards in the
cone with apex 2 (material properties of lower half-
space c
0
, q
0
). Based on wave propagation in beams
with varying area reection coefcient a(x) for the
translational cone is given by
ax
gx
f x

qc
2
z
0
d

q
0
c
02
z
0
0
ixqc q
0
c
0

qc
2
z
0
d

q
0
c
02
z
0
0
ixqc q
0
c
0

12
z
0
+(2j-1)d
z
0
+ 2jd
2j
2j+1
z
0
+ d
z
0
+ 3d
d
4
2
1
3
z
0
z
0
+ 2d
r0
P0
u0
u
z

z
u0
u
P0
r0
z
0
1
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2 (a) Wave
propagation in cones for
layered soil, (b) Cone
model for the half-space
Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468 457
123
where; hx 1 axf x 13
Under special case when the layer interface is
xed, i.e. the lower layer is perfectly rigid, no
refracted wave is created, and reected wave is equal
to the incident wave with a change in sign. Thus,
setting c
0
= ? in Eq. 12 yields
ax 1 14
which leads to
gx f x 15
hx 0 16
Analogously, when the interface corresponds to a
free surface (c
0
= 0)
ax 1 17
leading to
gx f x 18
3.2 Dynamic Impedance
The interaction force displacement relationship for a
massless disk resting on homogeneous half-space
using the cone model can be written as
P
0
x K Dmx
2
ixC"u
0
x 19
where, K - Dmx
2
= spring coefcient and
C = dashpot coefcient Dm is the trapped mass and
is given by
Dm lqr
3
0
20
with trapped mass coefcient l, the values of which
recommended by Wolf (1994) are given in Table 1.
The trapped mass Dm is introduced in order to match
the stiffness coefcient of the cone model with
rigorous solutions for incompressible soil i.e., 1/
3 \m B 1/2, Wolf (1994). After simplication Eq. 19
reduces to the form
P
0
x K 1
l
p
z
0
r
0
c
2
x
2
ix
z
0
c
_ _
"u
0
x 21
Using Eq. 10 in Eq. 21, the interaction force
displacement relationship for the layered soil system
reduces to
P
0
x K
1
l
p
z
0
r
0
c
2
x
2
ix
z
0
c

1
j0
E
F
j
e
ix
2jd
c

u
0
x 22
Substituting echo constant given by Eq. 11 in Eq. 22,
the dynamic impedance equals
"
Kx
P
0
x
u
0
x
K
1
l
p
z
0
r
0
c
2
x
2
ix
z
0
c
1 2

1
j1
a
j
1
2jd
z
0
e
ix
2jd
c

23
In the expression of the dynamic impedance
"
Kx
given by Eq. 23, the summation of series over jis
worked out up to a nite term as the displacement
amplitude of the waves vanish after a nite number of
Table 1 Parameters of semi-innite cone modeling a disk on
homogeneous half-space under vertical motion, Wolf (1994)
Cone parameters Parameter expressions
Aspect ratio
z0
r
0
p
4
1 m
c
c
s
_ _
2
Static stiffness coefcient K
qc
2
pr
2
0

z
0
Normalized spring coefcient k(a
0
) 1
l
p
z
0
r
0
c
2
s
c
2
a
2
0
Normalized damping coefcient c(a
0
)
z
0
r
0
c
s
c
Dimensionless frequency a
0
xr
0
c
s
Coefcient l for trapped mass
contribution
l = 0 for m B 1/3
l 2:4p m
1
3
_ _
for
1/3 \m B 1/2
Appropriate wave velocity c c = c
p
for m B 1/3
c = 2c
s
for
1/3 \m B 1/2
where, c
p
c
s

21m
12m
_
Half-space
(c, )
g
h
Free surface
Layer (c, )
Interface
f
1
2
3
d
z
0
z
0+d
z
0

Fig. 3 Incident, reected and refracted waves at layer interface

458 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
123
impingement. Numerically j is terminated at a value,
such that E
F
j1
E
F
j

0:01 .
4 Experimental Program
In the present study the effect of layering on the
dynamic response of foundation soil system is pro-
posed to investigate experimentally. Vertical vibration
tests using mechanical oscillator (Lazan Type) on
various depths of top layer with different static
weights, W and different dynamic force level (eccen-
tric settings in oscillator, h) are conducted. Detailed
programof the study is presented in Table 2 and Fig. 4.
Table 2 presents the various depths of top layer and the
dynamic force level considered in the investigation
whereas Fig. 4 shows two different test conditions.
4.1 Test Pit
To simulate the condition of proposed soil layering in
the investigation only choice is to conduct the test in a
tank or a pit of nite dimension. In the laboratory
tests, an optimization is needed between tank and
footing size to minimize the effects caused by
restricting lateral boundary. In spite of this, it is very
difcult to simulate the eld conditions in the
laboratory. In order to overcome the limitations of
laboratory tests, the authors are inspired to conduct the
eld tests. Present investigation is carried out in a pit,
excavated at the adjoining area of S.R. Sengupta
Foundation Engineering Laboratory, Indian Institute
of Technology, Kharagpur which is sufciently larger
(width is 5 times the width of the footing) than that
required for the static condition. The density of in situ
soil is approximately equal to 18.0 kN/m
3
. Suitability
of the dimensions of the pit with respect to the size of
the footing for possible boundary effects is consid-
ered. The side of the pit is made of local soil of density
18.0 kN/m
3
and moisture content is around 11% and
is expected to be extending up to innite distance.
4.2 Material Properties
The density of the gravel used in this test is 17.2 kN/
m
3
and frictional angle from direct shear test is 49.
The relative density of the gravel achieved in this
experiment was 85%. The study of grain size
distribution of the soil at the pit site indicated sand
(30%), silt (61%) and clay (9%). Liquid limit, plastic
limit, and shrinkage limit of the site soil were 36%,
23%, and 12%, respectively. Experimental values of
dynamic shear modulus of both gavel and the in situ
soil at different static and dynamic loading conditions
are given in Table 3.
4.3 Preparation of Layers
4.3.1 Series I
The in situ soil is excavated from the top in steps of
200 mm. The excavated surface of the soil is then
leveled. Each time the total depth of pit is replaced by
locally available gravel. Thus, six different depths of
top gravel layer (400 mm, 600 mm, 800 mm,
1,000 mm, 1,200 mm, and 1,400 mm) are prepared.
Table 2 Details of eld tests
Depth of top gravel
layer (d) in mm
Total number of tests considering all
variables
400 For each depth of top gravel layer tests
are conducted at two static weights,
8.0 kN and 10.0 kN and three
eccentric settings, 12, 16, 20 for
each static weight). Hence, total
number of tests is 72 being 36 on
each series
600
800
1000
1200
1400
d
Gravel
Natural soil
Series I
Gravel
Rigid base
Series II
d
Fig. 4 Different layered-soil systems
Table 3 Shear modulus values for gravel and in situ soil
Static
weights (kN)
Eccentric
setting (h)
Shear modulus (G) MN/m
2
Gravel In situ soil
8.0 12 21.36 17.26
16 20.87 16.41
20 20.25 16.26
10.0 12 25.84 19.07
16 22.98 18.56
20 21.11 17.96
Note: m
soil
= 0.3 and c
soil
= 18.0 kN/m
3
; m
gravel
= 0.25 and
c
gravel
= 17.2 kN/m
3
Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468 459
123
To maintain a uniform condition throughout the test
program, the pit is lled in steps of 200 mm thick
layer of gravel and each layer is compacted using a
plate vibrator (250 N static weights and vibrating at a
frequency of 3,000 rpm) by constant compactive
effort to achieve a density of approximately 17.2 kN/
m
3
. Calculated amount of dry gravel for 200 mm
depth maintaining uniform density (17.2 kN/m
3
) is
poured and compacted to bring it to 200 mm. Thus,
gravel layers of six different thicknesses are prepared
over in situ soil according to the experimental
program given in Table 2.
4.3.2 Series II
The test pit is excavated up to 1,700 mm depth. At
the base a 300 mm PCC concrete slab is cast to
represent rigid base. After casting and curing of
concrete slab the gravel layer is placed. The different
depths of gravel layers are prepared over rigid base as
per experimental program. Necessary steps have been
taken to maintain the uniform density through out the
test. The tests are conducted on the level surface of
each layer.
4.4 Experimental Procedure
A model concrete footing of size 400 9 400
9 100 mm and a Lazan type mechanical oscillator
are used to conduct model block vibration test in
vertical mode. The concrete footing is rst placed
centrally over the prepared gravel layer. A rigid mild
steel plate is tightly xed on the concrete footing to
facilitate load-xing arrangement. Oscillator is then
placed over the plate and a number of mild steel
ingots are placed on the top of the oscillator to
provide required static weight. Sufcient rubber
packing between two ingots is given for tight xing.
The whole set-up is then tightened to act as a single
unit during vibration. Proper care is taken to maintain
the center of gravity of whole system and the footing
to lie in the same vertical line. In this investigation,
8.0 and 10.0 kN static weights are used to simulate
two different foundation weights and under each
static weight three different eccentric settings
(h = 12, 16, and 20) are used to simulate three
different dynamic force level. The frequency
dependent dynamic force amplitude in N was
expressed by
m
e
ex
2

W
e
e
g
x
2

0:9 sinh=2
g
x
2
24
The oscillator is connected through a exible shaft
to a variable DC motor (3 H.P. frequency range up to
3000 rpm). A B&K piezoelectric-type vibration
pickup (type 4370) is placed on top of the footing to
measure the displacement amplitude with the B&K
vibration meter (type 2511). Figure 5 shows the
schematic diagram of the experimental set-up. The
oscillator is then run slowly through a motor using
speed control unit to avoid sudden application of high
magnitude dynamic load. Thus the foundation is
subjected to vibration in the vertical direction. Photo
tachometer and vibration meter recorded frequency
Motor
Vibration
meter
Static
weight
Mechanical
oscillator
Speed
control unit
Shaft
Rigid base to
simulate bedrock
Topsoil layer:
varying thickness
1.7m
0.3m
Fig. 5 Experimental set-up
460 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
123
Table 4 Comparison of
resonant frequencies and
resonant amplitudes for
gravel layer over rigid
basestatic weight =
8.0 kN
Depth
(mm)
Depth ratio
(d/r
0
)
h
(degree)
Resonant
frequency (Hz)
Diff.
(%)
Resonant
amplitude (mm)
Diff.
(%)
Expt. Pred. Expt Pred.
400 1.77 12 31.40 36.25 15.44 0.16 0.20 25.00
16 30.53 35.83 17.35 0.20 0.27 35.00
20 29.83 35.41 18.71 0.23 0.33 43.47
600 2.66 12 29.38 33.33 13.44 0.21 0.12 -42.85
16 28.81 32.91 14.22 0.21 0.16 -23.80
20 28.60 32.50 13.63 0.23 0.20 -13.04
800 3.54 12 29.08 30.41 4.58 0.25 0.14 -44.00
16 28.33 30.00 5.88 0.30 0.20 -33.33
20 27.93 29.58 5.90 0.34 0.23 -32.35
1,000 4.43 12 28.40 29.58 4.16 0.19 0.11 -42.10
16 28.02 29.58 5.59 0.28 0.15 -46.42
20 27.78 29.16 4.97 0.30 0.24 -20.00
1,200 5.32 12 28.21 27.91 -1.06 0.25 0.12 -52.00
16 27.90 27.91 0.06 0.24 0.16 -33.33
20 27.48 27.50 0.06 0.32 0.26 -18.75
1,400 6.20 12 28.10 26.66 -5.10 0.21 0.11 -47.61
16 27.73 26.25 -5.34 0.23 0.15 -34.78
20 27.30 26.25 -3.84 0.32 0.22 -31.25
Table 5 Comparison of
resonant frequencies and
resonant amplitudes for
gravel layer over rigid
basestatic
weight = 10.0 kN
Depth
(mm)
Depth ratio
(d/r
0
)
h
(degree)
Resonant
frequency (Hz)
Diff.
(%)
Resonant
amplitude (mm)
Diff.
(%)
Expt. Pred. Expt Pred.
400 1.77 12 31.18 35.00 12.23 0.08 0.10 25.00
16 30.21 32.92 8.93 0.12 0.13 8.33
20 29.15 31.67 8.63 0.16 0.16 0.00
600 2.66 12 28.51 32.50 13.96 0.10 0.14 40.00
16 27.68 30.83 11.37 0.12 0.17 41.66
20 26.81 29.58 10.31 0.14 0.20 42.85
800 3.54 12 28.15 30.00 6.57 0.16 0.10 -37.50
16 27.50 28.33 3.03 0.19 0.14 -26.31
20 26.55 27.08 2.01 0.24 0.17 -29.16
1,000 4.43 12 27.91 29.58 5.97 0.13 0.11 -15.38
16 26.36 27.92 5.87 0.15 0.15 0.00
20 26.10 26.67 2.17 0.22 0.18 -18.18
1,200 5.32 12 27.76 28.33 2.04 0.12 0.10 -16.67
16 26.18 26.67 1.84 0.15 0.14 -6.67
20 25.10 25.41 1.26 0.22 0.18 -18.18
1,400 6.20 12 27.63 27.08 -1.99 0.11 0.10 -9.09
16 26.03 25.41 -2.36 0.15 0.14 -6.67
20 24.95 25.41 1.87 0.21 0.17 -19.05
Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468 461
123
Table 6 Comparison of
resonant frequencies and
resonant amplitudes for
gravel layer over in situ
soilstatic
weight = 8.0 kN
Depth
(mm)
Depth ratio
(d/r
0
)
h
(degree)
Resonant
frequency (Hz)
Diff.
(%)
Resonant
amplitude (mm)
Diff.
(%)
Expt. Pred. Expt Pred.
400 1.77 12 27.52 29.50 7.20 0.073 0.050 -31.50
16 27.03 29.16 7.89 0.083 0.060 -27.71
20 26.81 29.16 8.76 0.093 0.080 -13.97
600 2.66 12 28.28 29.83 5.48 0.077 0.052 -32.46
16 27.98 29.50 5.41 0.087 0.068 -21.83
20 27.25 29.16 7.03 0.100 0.084 -16.00
800 3.54 12 27.78 30.00 7.97 0.077 0.054 -29.87
16 27.21 29.66 9.00 0.093 0.070 -24.73
20 26.85 29.33 9.24 0.077 0.086 11.68
1,000 4.43 12 28.01 30.00 7.07 0.080 0.054 -32.50
16 27.30 29.66 8.66 0.093 0.072 -22.58
20 27.05 29.33 8.44 0.107 0.090 -15.88
1,200 5.32 12 28.25 29.83 5.60 0.083 0.056 -32.53
16 27.80 29.66 6.71 0.100 0.074 -26.00
20 27.08 29.16 7.69 0.107 0.092 -14.01
1,400 6.20 12 28.16 29.66 5.32 0.080 0.054 -32.50
16 27.61 29.50 6.81 0.097 0.072 -25.77
20 27.18 29.00 6.68 0.100 0.088 -12.00
Table 7 Comparison of
resonant frequencies and
resonant amplitudes for
gravel layer over in situ
soilstatic
weight = 10.0 kN
Depth
(mm)
Depth ratio
(d/r
0
)
h
(degree)
Resonant
frequency (Hz)
Diff.
(%)
Resonant
amplitude (mm)
Diff.
(%)
Expt. Pred. Expt Pred.
400 1.77 12 27.05 28.50 5.36 0.050 0.040 -20.00
16 26.85 27.00 0.56 0.067 0.056 -16.42
20 26.42 25.83 -2.21 0.080 0.072 -10.00
600 2.66 12 27.38 29.00 5.90 0.053 0.042 -20.75
16 26.68 27.33 2.43 0.063 0.060 -4.76
20 25.58 26.16 2.28 0.070 0.074 5.71
800 3.54 12 27.22 29.33 7.78 0.050 0.044 -12.00
16 27.00 27.50 1.85 0.060 0.060 0.00
20 26.08 26.33 0.96 0.073 0.076 4.11
1,000 4.43 12 27.18 29.50 8.52 0.057 0.046 -19.30
16 27.08 27.67 2.15 0.067 0.062 -7.46
20 26.42 26.33 -0.31 0.080 0.078 -2.50
1,200 5.32 12 27.28 29.33 7.51 0.060 0.048 -20.00
16 27.03 27.50 1.73 0.070 0.064 -8.57
20 25.72 26.33 2.39 0.080 0.080 0.00
1,400 6.20 12 27.17 29.33 7.97 0.057 0.048 -15.79
16 26.87 27.33 1.74 0.067 0.060 -10.45
20 25.85 26.17 1.23 0.077 0.074 -3.89
462 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
123
and corresponding displacement amplitude of vibra-
tion respectively. To obtain a foundation response and
locate the resonant peak correctly, the displacement
amplitudes are noted at a frequency interval approx-
imately of 25 to 50 rpm.
A sufcient time between two successive mea-
surements has been given to reach equilibrium, which
facilitates accurate measurement of frequency and the
corresponding displacement amplitude. The displace-
ment amplitude corresponding to each frequency is
recorded and the response curves are plotted for
different layered systems under various static and
dynamic loading conditions.
5 Cone Model versus Experiment
The frequency-amplitude response for all the cases
mentioned in Table 2 are computed using the
solutions of cone model. The experimental values
of dynamic shear modulus given in Table 3 are used
in the above computation. Material damping ratio 2%
and 1% was assumed for top gravel layer and bottom
in situ soil respectively. The predicted resonant
frequencies and resonant amplitudes are compared
quantitatively with respective experimental values,
which are presented in Tables 47 and Figs. 6 and 7.
The comparison of resonant frequencies for gravel
layer over concrete rigid base (series II) shows a
difference of -5% to 19% under static weight 8.0 kN
and -2% to 14% under static weight 10.0 kN
(Tables 4 and 5). The maximum difference is
observed at lower depth and at higher force level.
But the predicted amplitudes for the above case are
found to deviate from corresponding experimental
values in the range -52% to 43% and -37% to 42%
under static weight 8.0 kN and 10.0 kN respectively.
For the case of gravel layer over in situ soil (series I)
20 25 30 35 40
20
25
30
35
40
(a)
Data Points
45 Line
R
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

(
H
z
)
Resonant Frequency Observed (Hz)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
(b)
R
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

(
H
z
)
Resonant Amplitude Observed (Hz)
Data Points
45 Line
Fig. 6 Comparison of (a)
resonant frequencies and
(b) resonant amplitudes for
gravel layer over rigid base
20 25 30 35
20
25
30
35
(a)
Data Points
45 Line
R
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

(
H
z
)
Resonant Frequency Observed (Hz)
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
(b)
R
e
s
o
n
a
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

(
H
z
)
Resonant Amplitude Observed (Hz)
Data Points
45 Line
Fig. 7 Comparison of (a)
resonant frequencies and
(b) resonant amplitudes for
gravel layer over in situ soil
Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468 463
123
the deviation of predicted resonant frequencies are in
the range 5% to 9% and -2% to 8% under static
weight 8 kN and 10 kN respectively. The predicted
resonant amplitudes for the above case shows a
negative difference in majority of cases when com-
pared against their respective experimental values,
maximum being -32% and -20% under static
weight 8 kN and 10 kN respectively. In general
considering the comparison of all the test results it is
observed that the predicted resonant frequencies
are very close to their experimental values (max.
deviation 19%), thus showing a good engineering
accuracy (Figs. 6 and 7). But in case of amplitudes
the deviation of predicted values are negative in most
of the cases indicating that the model predicts a
higher damping, giving rise to lower values of
amplitudes. Also the authors feel that this may be
due to poor selection of material damping. The
material damping (hysteretic) considered in the
model is strain dependent and hence it should vary
with the variation of force level. But it is not taken
into consideration, rather irrespective of the force
level a constant material damping ratio 2% for gravel
and 1% for in situ soil is considered. This may be the
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=1.77
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=2.66
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=3.54
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=4.43
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=5.32
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=6.20
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 8 Comparison of
frequency-amplitude
response curves for gravel
layer over rigid base (static
weight = 8.0 kN and
h = 16)
464 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
123
reason for which the predicted amplitudes are lower
compared to experimental ones. In spite of such
deviations, it is observed that the predicted ampli-
tudes match well with experimental values (Figs. 6
and 7).
In case of layered soil the dynamic response of
foundation is greatly inuenced by the depth of the
top layer and relative rigidity of layers. In the present
investigation two different cases of relative rigidity
(series I and series II) and six different depths of top
layer are considered. The nature of variation of
frequencies and amplitudes due to variation of
above two parameters are observed to be same in
both experimental and model predicted results
(Tables 47).
In case of gravel layer over in situ soil, change in
the resonant frequencies and resonant amplitudes
with variation of the depth of top layer are negligible
(Tables 6 and 7) as the relative rigidity is very close
to one. Thus, this case may be considered closer to a
homogeneous half-space. Hence for comparison of
frequency-amplitude response for layered soil only
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=1.77
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=2.66
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=3.54
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=4.43
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=5.32
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
Predicted
Experimental
d/r
0
=6.20
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
Fig. 9 Comparison of frequency-amplitude response curves for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 10.0 kN and h = 16)
Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468 465
123
the case of gravel layer over rigid base with variation
of depth of top layer is presented for a given force
level (h = 16) under two values of static weights
(Figs. 8 and 9). From Figs. 8 and 9, it is observed
that the predicted and experimental resonant frequen-
cies and amplitudes are closer at higher static weight.
With increase in the depth of top layer decrease of
resonant frequency is also observed in both experi-
mental and predicted response curves.
The effect of damping ratio on the behaviour
between the displacement amplitude and frequency
has been studied for different depths of gravel layer
over rigid base under a given dynamic force level and
two different static weights. The damping ratio varied
from 0.00 to 0.03, and results obtained with different
damping ratios are presented in Figs. 10 and 11. In
general a decrease in the resonant amplitude and
negligible change in the resonant frequency is
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
d/r
0
=1.77
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
d/r
0
=2.66
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
d/r
0
=3.54
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
d/r
0
=4.43
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
d/r
0
=5.32
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
d/r
0
=6.20
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
Fig. 10 Effect of damping ratio on frequency-amplitude response for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 8.0 kN and
h = 16)
466 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
123
observed from Figs. 10 and 11 with the increase of
damping from 0.0 to 0.03. The average decrease in
the resonant amplitude from that corresponding to
zero damping is observed to be 25%, 40% and 50%
when the damping is increased to 0.01, 0.02 and 0.03
respectively under 10 kN static weight. The order of
decrease was observed to be 30%, 45% and 55% for
8 kN static weight. Also, it is observed from Figs. 8
11 that the response curve at damping ratio 0.02 is
closer to the experimental response curve indicating a
good assumption of damping ratio.
6 Conclusions
Compared to available rigorous analytical methods
for foundation vibration analysis on layered soil cone
model is found to be very simple as it considers only
one type of body waves for the mode of vibration
considered and the analysis is performed using a
basic strength of material approach. Though the
model predicts a little higher damping, a good
engineering accuracy is achieved when compared
against 72 eld test results. Thus, it may be used as a
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
d/r
0
=1.77
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
d/r
0
=2.66
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
d/r
0
=3.54
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
d/r
0
=4.43
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
d/r
0
=5.32
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
d/r
0
=6.20
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Frequency (Hz)
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
=0.00
=0.01
=0.02
=0.03
Fig. 11 Effect of damping ratio on frequency-amplitude response for gravel layer over rigid base (static weight = 10.0 kN and
h = 16)
Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468 467
123
cost effective tool for the analysis of machine
foundations on layered soil with due reliability.
References
Baidya DK, Muralikrishna G (2001) Investigation of resonant
frequency and amplitude of vibrating footing resting on a
layered soil system. Geotech Test J ASTM 24(4):409417
Baidya DK, Rathi A (2004) Dynamic response of footing on a
sand layer of nite thickness. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
ASCE 130(6):651655
Baidya DK, Sridharan A (2002) Foundation vibration on
layered soil system. Indian Geotech J 32(2):235257
Crouse CB, Hushmand B, Luco JE, Wong HL (1990) Foun-
dation impedance functions: theory versus experiment.
J Geotech Eng ASCE 116(3):432449
de Barros FCP, Luco JE (1990) Discrete models for vertical
vibration of surface and embedded foundations. Earth-
quake Eng Struc Dyn 19(2):289303
Ehlers G (1942) The effect of soil exibility on vibrating
systems. Beton and Eisen 41(21/22):197203
Gazetas G (1983) Analysis of machine foundation vibrations:
state of the art. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 2(1):242
Gazetas G (1987) Simple physical methods for foundation
impedance. In: Banerjee PK, Buttereld R (eds) Dynamic
behaviour of foundations and buried structures. Devel-
opments in soil mechanics and fundation engineering, vol
3, chapter 2. Elsevier Applied Science, London
Gazetas G, Dobry R (1984) Simple radiation damping model
for piles and footings. J Geotech Eng ASCE 110(6):
937956
Gazetas G, Stokoe KH II (1991) Vibration of embedded
foundations: theory versus experiment. J Geotech Eng
ASCE, 117(9):13821401
Jaya KP, Prasad AM (2002) Embedded foundation in layered
soil under dynamic excitations. J Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng 22:485498
Mandal A, Baidya DK (2004) Effect of presence of rigid base
within the soil on the dynamic response of rigid surface
foundation. Geotech Test J ASTM 27(5):475482
Meek JW, Veletsos AS (1974) Simple models for foundations
in lateral and rocking motions. In: Proceedings of 5th
World Congress on Earthquake Engineering, vol 2. Rome,
pp 26102613
Meek JW, Wolf JP (1992a) Cone models for homogeneous
soil. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE, 118(5):667685
Meek JW, Wolf JP (1992b) Cone models for soil layer on rigid
rock. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 118(5):686703
Meek JW, Wolf JP (1994) Cone models for an embedded
foundation. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 120:6080
Pradhan PK, Baidya DK, Ghosh DP (2003) Impedance func-
tions of circular foundation resting on layered soil using
cone model. Electron J Geotech Eng 8(B)
Pradhan PK, Baidya DK, Ghosh DP (2004) Dynamic response
of foundations resting on layered soil by cone model. J
Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 24(6):425434
Sridharan A, Gandhi NSVVSJ, Suresh S (1990) Stiffness
coefcients of layered soil system. J Geotech Eng ASCE
116(4):604624
Veletsos AS, Nair VD (1974) Response of torsionally excited
foundations. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 100:476482
Veletsos AS, Verbic B (1973) Vibration of viscoelastic foun-
dations. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn 2:87102
Wolf JP (1994) Foundation vibration analysis using simple
physical models. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Wolf JP, Deeks AJ (2004) Foundation vibration analysis: a
strength-of-material approach, 1st edn. Elsevier
Wolf JP, Meek JW (1993) Cone models for a soil layer on
exible rock half-space. Earthquake Eng Struc Dyn
22:185193
Wolf JP, Meek JW (1994) Dynamic stiffness of foundation on
or embedded in layered soil using cone frustums. Earth-
quake Eng Struc Dyn 23:10791095
Wolf JP, Somaini DR (1986) Approximate dynamic model of
embedded foundation in time domain. Earthquake Eng
Struc Dyn 14(5):683703
468 Geotech Geol Eng (2008) 26:453468
123